T
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 08 Jun 2002 15:43:03 -0700
From: Gary Reese <pcacala@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [OM] Re: Zuiko 200 f5
I was quoted as saying in April 1999:
"My personal conclusion is that the 65-200 is the way to go for
180-200mm focal length shooting, if not 105 to 200mm shooting! I
suspect that only the 180mm f/2 Zuiko can outperform it at 180-200mm,
among Zuikos."
Having re-read the entired posting, I believe this was from the "pre
mirror and diaphragm prefire" era in my lens testing, not that the
conclusions are that different today. If one takes great care to
stabilize a 200mm f/4 Zuiko, it can produce extraordinary results,
non-film based MTF results withstanding. So can the 180mm f/2.8 Zuiko,
if stabilized. Likewise, they are fine choices hand held, with high
shutter speeds. The only way to really get tripod stability with these
tripod collar-less lenses is with a Bogen Telephoto Lens Support - which
will certainly slow down your shooting. If you do nothing to stabilize
any of the 180-200mm lenses when using a tripod, your images will
probably suffer, as per the extensive lens testing.
The Tamron SP 80-200mm f/2.8 test was after April 1999. After testing
it, it became my favorite for shooting in the 136-200mm range. But the
bulk makes it not always practical to carry and at long focal lengths
you can make out chromatic aberration in mine: a purple streak. But you
have to get out the microscope or look within inches of a matte
projection screen to see it, though. One needs a apochromatic lens to
get ride of that and the 180mm f/2 Zuiko is near apo, with the 250mm f/2
Zuiko being an apo.
Susie always carries our 65-200mm f/4 Zuiko. We often had both zooms
mounted on his/her OM-2S bodies (slide = his/prints=hers) riding shotgun
on road trips. The 65-200 has an infinity focus problem at 180-200mm,
which cropped up (pun intended) after Olympus America tried to do a
relub job. (The lens tests were pre "overhaul.") We have to back off
to 180mm to get it to focus at infinity. We would probably travel with
two 65-200mm Zuikos if we owned two. Presently I just ride shot gun
with a Fujica GW690II and grab her OM-2S/65-200mm combo if I need
telephoto.
I carry a 135mm f/4.5 Zuiko Macro for shooting at that focal length,
regardless of doing macro or far away shooting. Downsides are no depth
of field scale and bulk, but the image quality is great AND IT HAS A
TRIPOD COLLAR! The Tamron covers most of my 80-134mm shots, except when
I can use a 90mm f/2 Zuiko, or just opt for a 150mm on the ETRSi.
I sold off my 85-250mm f/5 because it's too slow and too long in a
pack/bag, despite the plus of having a tripod collar. A 50-250mm f/5 is
equally slow, has no collar and is too pricey/rare. When one finds a
good performing zoom lens in the range between 60 and 300mm, I can see
why the user would recommend it to other folks. They are very
convenient and often used.
I did some real world comparisons of multicoated versions of both the
200mm f/4 Zuiko and the 200mm f/5 Zuiko. I shot a fine detail landscape
at infinity. I think the film was Agfachrome RSX 50. It was a toss-up
(although a OM List Archive post I can't locate might have some minute
differences discussed). The film seemed to be the limiting factor in
the test - which didn't use a Bogen tripod support.
Gary Reese
Las Vegas, NV
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|